Looking at those colored votes really drove home how little Rictus/sphenodont have any kind of record in this game. If the WOG after 2 consecutive or 3 total misses is meant to punish a player for avoiding participation, replacing a WOG'ed player with another person who misses votes results in kind of ... un-fixing the problem. Like seriously, at this point it's one vote different from allowing Rictus to ride with no WOG at all.

I don't want this to sound too bitter, but how can the humans expect to catch Sphenodont with almost no voting record?

Yeah - to be quite honest, this is why we just had a post about participation in the Pub, right? That said, the humans didn't so much win this game as Omega did. Holy shit, dude - I hope you're in Vegas right now.

DastardlyOldMan wrote:Yeah - to be quite honest, this is why we just had a post about participation in the Pub, right? That said, the humans didn't so much win this game as Omega did. Holy shit, dude - I hope you're in Vegas right now.

I am glad you decided to WoG spheno instead of letting him slide! As an observer I felt myself growing increasingly annoyed that he might slip by to a possible lone wolf win due in part to a lack of participation; while it was an anti-climatic victory, I know I would have been annoyed as a player should spheno have come out victorious as the final wolf.

After watching things here, and growing increasingly nervous about how it might have ended, I now feel the replace option should be discarded entirely (save for day one emergency drops) as it creates a serious meta imbalance, and GMs should just be more forceful on WoGs as dferr has been here.

I now feel the replace option should be discarded entirely (save for day one emergency drops) as it creates a serious meta imbalance, and GMs should just be more forceful on WoGs as dferr has been here.

Even though it was to our benefit this game, I agree this is probably the right call.

Ryvvn wrote:After watching things here, and growing increasingly nervous about how it might have ended, I now feel the replace option should be discarded entirely (save for day one emergency drops) as it creates a serious meta imbalance, and GMs should just be more forceful on WoGs as dferr has been here.

I'm iffy on this. I think replacing Day 1 or 2 WoGs with someone who will be active is sometimes a good thing, and the issues with this game in particular were threefold:

sphenodont wasn't added until very late in Day 3, which caused an almost-unavoidable missing vote. I should have had a replacement ready to go immediately, waiting for his confirmation was a bad decision on my part.

He missed EoD twice. Had I been around to lock the thread at 10, he'd have been less likely to miss that second vote. It was, however, posted in the rules thread and there were multiple instances of late votes being ignored and noted in the OPs.

He came into the game the day the seer had dumped their visions. This would have only been partially mitigated by filling the spot earlier, since vote analysis is useless after this point anyway.

Mind, that doesn't excuse the missed votes, but it does push part of the blame onto my handling of the situation. On the other side of that coin, even if Rictus was replaced by someone immediately on Day 3, there would have only been one, maybe two votes to go off of, which is still a serious handicap for analysis. In the future, it may make sense to base the rules around the length of each particular game rather than making the rule hard and fast. If a game's only going to last a week tops, you're at most 30% of the way through on Day 3 and probably shouldn't be replacing WoGs. If the game's much larger, it may make more sense to do so.

I now feel the replace option should be discarded entirely (save for day one emergency drops) as it creates a serious meta imbalance, and GMs should just be more forceful on WoGs as dferr has been here.

Even though it was to our benefit this game, I agree this is probably the right call.

I'd agree with this, with the obvious caveat that there is always room for Zombie Ferris

More in a bit,

7z7

"Zark Helmet is too awesome NOT to use!" -Smirker"The possibility that it's Zark simply murdering someone at a whim each day... would be delightful if true, but I worry that that's too simple a solution." - Okaros

I think the only way to counter missed votes would be to negate them somehow; replace the player immediately upon their missed vote, and extend the day by 24 hours. Obviously, that makes for a longer, slower game.

I could envision some kind of "15 players + a pool of 3 standbys" - as a player misses a vote, you backfill from the standby pool (and maybe move them to the standby pool). Alternately, you never ~kill a vanilla human, and use that as standbys (which takes some of the fun out of the dead thread). Either way, I think you almost have to extend the day to give them opportunity to have a voting record.

DastardlyOldMan wrote:I think the only way to counter missed votes would be to negate them somehow; replace the player immediately upon their missed vote, and extend the day by 24 hours. Obviously, that makes for a longer, slower game.

I could envision some kind of "15 players + a pool of 3 standbys" - as a player misses a vote, you backfill from the standby pool (and maybe move them to the standby pool). Alternately, you never ~kill a vanilla human, and use that as standbys (which takes some of the fun out of the dead thread). Either way, I think you almost have to extend the day to give them opportunity to have a voting record.

While I think this is a great idea on paper, it's likely less disruptive to just kill them

First, thanks for the game dferrantino. The variant games can be fun, but there's something special about a nice vanilla game that's so much fun to play.

Omega wrote:And future Visi, still a dick move on my part?

If there is some rational reason for me to have dumped the three wolves midday, please, what am I missing?

Omega of Wolfing-past, yes. Possibly just a personal hang-up but when someone supposedly on the same team withholds information from the team (assuming no special variants with spies, multi-factions, etc.) my trust factor for them goes down and more so when it's a Seer reveal. Me voting on you had nothing to do with Okaros's attempted counter post since it wasn't up when I had read the thread at work with your post at the end. The reasons for the vote are what I had listed in my post. I can't predict the alternate past, but if you'd revealed everything up front I might have been likely to go along with it to see what happens. Even with the amazing 3 day 3 wolf hit that has never, as far as I know, been done and likely might never happen again results. I would have been a bit wary, but would have gone with it.

Withholding to encourage discussion or whatnot is silly since whenever a Seer does a reveal that includes a wolf the day is basically over as everyone that's still checking the thread moves their vote to the wolf. I guess there was discussion created but mainly talking about you not giving out all the information. At least did anyone actually get any hints from the discussion that occurred after the reveal? The only one I really got was moving sphenodont up in my wolf list due to him voting on Omega with a tying vote and then the "confused" post. But that wasn't due to withholding the list and more because someone was voting against a Seer with no real reason other than to make it a tie. Silly I know since I voted on him but even with what turned out to be wrong reasons at least there was something there as to why I was making that vote.

I guess I felt with 3/4 wolves found, and no lead on the 4th, if identified them, then that 4th wolf would have likely voted with me and been super under the radar as much as he could. (Obviously did not know he only had one vote of history at that point) but with only 1 stated, who knew if CAD or MEM would do something suspicious over the next couple of hours and implicate the 4th, or whatever. '

Ah well, we could probably discuss this for days and never get to a solution.

Well, the 4th wolf should have voted with you since honestly you came out as a Seer first. Really all of the wolves should have voted with you, of which many did, and anyone that didn't vote with you after the reveal should have been suspect. I include myself in that list since even with reasons it's very, very odd to vote on the Seer and help the person they've pointed to as a wolf.

But yeah we could go back and forth and it would likely change from game to game depending on the scenarios. Of course you'd still be wrong in all of those instances.